to oppose its Canonical Authority with their frivolous Cavils and Objections Neither is this Experience meerly satisfactory to themselves alone as is by some pretended It is a thing pleadable and that not only in their own defence to strengthen their Faith against Temptations but to others also though not to Atheistical Scoffers yet to humble enquirers which ought to be the frame of all men in the Investigation of Sacred Truths § 34 Unto what hath been spoken we may add that the Canonical Authority of this Epistle is confirmed unto us by Catholick Tradition By this Tradition I intend not the Testimony only of the present Church that is in the world nor Fancy a trust of a Power to declare what is so in any Church whatever but a generall uninterrupted Fame conveyed and confirmed by particular Instances Records and Testimonies in all Ages In any other sense how little weight there is to be laid upon Traditions we have a pregnant instance in him who first began to magnifie them This was Papias a contemporary of Policarpus in the very next Age after the Apostles Tradition of what was done or said by Christ or the Apostles what Expositions they gave he professed himself to set an high value upon equal to if not above the Scripture And two things are considerable in his search after them First That he did not think that there was any Church appointed to be the Preserver and Declarer of Apostolical Traditions but made his enquiry of all the individual ancient men that he could meet withall who had conversed with any of the Apostles Secondly That by all his pains he gathered together a Rhapsody of incredible Stories Fables Errors and useless Curiosities Such issue will the endeavours of men have who forsake the stable Word of Prophesie to follow rumors and reports under the specious name of Traditions But this Catholick Fame whereof we speak confirmed by particular Entrances and Records in all Ages testifying unto a matter of Fact is of great importance And how clearly this may be pleaded in our present case shall be manifested in our Investigation of the Penman of this Epistle And thus I hope we have made it evident that this Epistle is not destitute of any one of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or infallible proofs and Arguments whereby any particular Book of the Scripture evinceth its self unto the Consciences of men to be written by Inspiration from God It remaineth now to shew that it is not liable unto any of those Exceptions or Arguments whereby any Book or Writing pretending a claim to a Divine Original and Canonical Authority thereupon may be convicted and manifested to be of another Extract whereby its just priviledge will be on both sides secured § 35 The first consideration of this nature is taken from the Author or Penman of any such Writing The Books of the Old Testament were all of them written by Prophets or holy men inspired of God Hence St. Peter calls the whole of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophesie 2 Pet. 1.21 Prophesie delivered by men acted or moved therein by the Holy Ghost And though there be a distribution made of the several Books of it from the Subject Matter into the Law Prophets and Psalms Luke 24.44 and often into the Law and Prophets on the same account as Acts 26.2 Rom. 3.22 yet their Penmen being all equally Prophets the whole in general is ascribed unto them and called Prophesie Rom. 1.8 Chap. 16.26 Luke 24.25 2 Pet. 1.19 So were the Books of the New Testament written by Apostles or men endowed with an Apostolical Spirit and in their work equally inspired by the Holy Ghost whence the Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone Ephes. 2.20 If then the Author of any Writing acknowledgeth himself or may otherwise be convinced to have been neither Prophet nor Apostle nor endued with the same infallible Spirit with them his work how excellent soever other wayes it may appear must needs be esteemed a meer fruit of his own Skill Diligence and Wisdom and not any way to belong unto the Canon of the Scripture This is the condition for instance of the second Book of Maccabees In the close of it the Author being doubtful what acceptance his endeavours and manner of Writing would find amongst his Readers makes his excuse and affirms that he did his utmost to please them in his Style and Composition of his words So he tells us before Chap. 2. v. 24. that he did but Epitomize the History of Jason the Cyrenean wherein he took great pains and labour The truth is he that had before commended Judas Machabaeus for offering Sacrifices for the dead which indeed he did not but for the living no where appointed in the Law and affirmed that Jeremiah hid the holy Fire Ark Tabernacle and Altar of Incense in a Cave that the same person Antiochus was killed at Nanea in Persia Chap. 1. v. 16. and dyed in the Mountains of torments in his Bowels as he was coming to Judea Chap. 9. whom the first Book affirms to have dyed of sorrow at Babylon Chap. 6. v. 16. who affirms Judas to have written Letters to Aristobulus in the one hundred eighty eighth year of the Seleucian Empire who was slain in the one hundred fifty second year of it Lib. 1. Chap. 1.3 that is thirty six years after his death with many other such mistakes and falshoods had no great need to inform us that he had no special Divine Assistance in his Writing but leaned unto his own Understanding But yet this he doth as we shewed and that openly For the Holy Ghost will not be an Epitomator of a Profane Writing as he professeth himself to have been nor make excuses for his weakness nor declare his pains and Sweat in his Work as he doth And yet to that pass are things brought in the World by Custome Prejudice love of Reputation scorn to be esteemed mistaken in any thing that many earnestly contend for this Book to be written by Divine Inspiration when the Author of it himself openly professeth it to have been of another Extract For although this Book be not only rejected out of the Canon by the Council of Laodicea Hierom and others of the Antients but by Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome himself yet the Church of Rome would now by force thrust it thereinto But were the Author himself alive again I am so well perswaded of his Ingenuity and Honesty from the Conclusion of his Story that they would never be able to make him say that he wrote by Divine Inspiration and little reason then have we to believe it Now this Epistle is free from this Exception The Penman of it doth no where intimate directly or indirectly that he wrote in his own strength or by his own ability which yet if he had done in an Argument of that
than the Artificial Rules of Philosophers That he should more abound with Testimonies and Quotations out of the Scripture of the Old Testament in this than other Epistles as he doth the Matter whereof he treats and the Persons to whom he wrote did necessarily require 4. Many things in this Epistle evidently manifest that he who wrote it was not only mighty in the Scripture but also exceedingly well versed and skillfull in the Customs Practices Opinions Traditions Expositions and Applications of Scripture then received in the Judaical Church as we shall fully manifest in our progress Now who in those dayes among the Disciples of Christ could this be but Paul For as he was brought up under one of the Best and Most Famous of their Masters in those dayes and profited in the Knowledge of their then present Religion above his Equals so for want of this kind of Learning the Jews esteemed the chief of the other Apostles Peter and John to be Ideots and Vnlearned 5. Sundry particulars towards and in the close of the Epistle openly proclaim Paul to have been the Writer of it As 1. The mention that he makes of his bonds and the Compassion that the Hebrews shewed towards him in his sufferings and whilest he was a Prisoner Chap. 10.34 Now as the Bonds of Paul were afterwards famous at Rome Phil. 1.13 So there was not any thing of greater notoriety in reference to the Church of God in those dayes than those that he suffered in Judaea which he minds them of in this Expression With what earnest endeavours what rage and tumult the Rulers and Body of the People sought his destruction how publickly and with what Solemnity his Cause was sundry times heard and debated with the time of his imprisonment that ensued are all declared in the Acts at large Now no man can imagine but that whilest this great Champion of their Profession was so publickly pleading their Cause and exposed to so much danger and hazzard thereby but that all the Believers of those parts were exceedingly solicitous about his condition as they had been about Peters in the like case and gave him all the Assistance and encouragement that they were able This Compassion of theirs and his own Bonds as an evidence of his Faith and their Mutual Love in the Gospel he now minds them of Of no other Person but Paul have we any ground to conjecture that this might be spoken and yet the suffering and compassion here mentioned seem not to have been things done in a corner So that this one Circumstance is able of its self to enervate all the Exceptions that are made use of against his being esteemed the Author of this Epistle 2. The mention of Pauls dear and constant Companion Timothy is of the same importance Chap. 13.23 That Timothy was at Rome with Paul in his Bonds is expresly asserted Phil. 1.13 14. That he himself was also cast into Prison with Paul is here intimated his release being expressed Now surely it is scarcely credible that any other should in Italy where Paul then was and newly released out of Prison write unto the Churches of the Hebrews and therein make mention of his own Bonds and the Bonds of Timothy a man unknown unto them but by the means of Paul and not once intimate any thing about his condition The exceptions of some as that Paul used to call Timothy his Son whereas the Writer of this Epistle calls him Brother when indeed he never terms him Son when he speaks of him but only when he wrote unto him or that there might be another Timothy when he speaks expresly of him who was so generally known to the Churches of God as one of the chiefest Evangelists deserve not to be insisted on And surely it is altogether incredible that this Timothy the Son of Paul as to his begetting of him in the Faith and continued Paternal Affection his known constant Associate in doing and suffering for the Gospel his Minister in attending of him and constantly imployed by him in the Service of Christ and the Churches known unto them by his means honâ—ured by him with two Epistles written unto him and the association of his Name with his own in the Inscription of sundry others should now be so absent from him as to be adjoyned unto another in his Travail and Ministry 3. The Constant Sign and token of Pauls Epistles which himself had publickly signified to be so 2 Thess. 3.13 is subjoyned unto this Grace be with you all That Originally this was written with Pauls own hand there is no ground to question and it appears to be so because it was written and he affirms that it was his Custome to subjoyn that Salutation with his own hand Now this Writing of it with his own hand was an evidence unto them unto whom the Original of the Epistle first came unto those who had only transcribed Copies of it it could not be so the Salutation its self was their Token being peculiar to Paul and among the rest annexed to this Epistle And all these Circumstances will yet receive some further enforcement from the Consideration of the Time wherein this Epistle was written whereof in the next place we shall Treat Exercitatio III. The Time of the Writing of this Epistle to the Hebrews The Vse of the right stating thereof After his release out of Prison Before the Death of James Before the Second of Peter The Time of Pauls coming to Rome The Condition of the affairs of the Jews at that time The Martyrdom of James State of the Churches of the Hebrews Constant in the Observation of Mosaical Institutions Warned to leave Jerusalem That Warning what and how given Causes of their unwillingness so to do The Occasion and Success of this Epistle § 1 THAT was not amiss observed of Old by Chrysostome Praesat in Com. ad Epist. ad Rom. that a due Observation of the Time and Season wherein the Epistles of Paul were written doth give great light unto the understanding of many passages in them This Baronius ad A.C. 55. N. 42. well confirms by an instance of their mistake who suppose the Shipwrack of Paul at Mileta Acts 27. to have been that mentioned by him 2. Cor. 11. when he was a night and a day in the deep that Epistle being written some years before his sayling towards Rome And we may well apply this Observation to this Epistle unto the Hebrews A discovery of the Time and season wherein it was written will both free us from sundry mistakes and also give us some light into the occasion and design of it This therefore we shall now inquire into § 2 Some general intimations we have in the Epistle it self leading us towards this discovery and somewhat may be gathered from some other places of Scripture for Antiquity will afford us little or no help herein After Pauls being brought a Prisoner to Rome Acts 28. two full years he continued in that condition v. 30.
reproved l. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 256. l. 31. large Discourses p. 260. l. 16. also r. after l. 10. à fine commission r. omission p. 275. l. 2. r. Judicial p. 276. l. 16. Sanction r. Section p. 290. l. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 308. l. 5. who thought l. 26. and other p. 311. l. 17. laying r. flaying p. 315. l. 4. serebrito r. seretrio There are sundry other mistakes in pointings changes and transpositions of letters in the Hebrew and English which a diligent and Candid Reader will easily observe and amend And it is not worth the while to collect them for those who are otherwise Exercitatio I. The Canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews Notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kaneh a measuring reed The beam of a ballance Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same signification Metaphorically a moral rule Rectum and Canon how far the same The Scripture a rule Canonical The Antiquity of that Appellation The Canon of the Scripture What required to render a book Canonical All books of the holy Scripture equall as to their divine Original Jews distinction of the books of the old Testament as to the manner of their writing disproved All equally Canonical No book Canonical of a second sort or degree The Epistle to the Hebrews Canonical Opposed by Hereticks of old Not received into the Latin Church untill the dayes of Hierome Proved against Baronius Not rejected by any of that Church only not publiquely approved The Church of Rome not the sole proposer of books Canonical Occasion of its nâ—n-admittance at Rome Boldness of some in rejecting and corrupting the Scripture By whom this Epistle opposed of late The objection of the uncertainty of the Pen-man Answered Citations out of the old Testament not found therein Answer Citations not to his purpose Answer Countenance to old Heresies Answer General heads of Arguments to prove its Canonical Authority Characters to discover between books of divine inspiration and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The General Arguments of books truly Canonical Subject Matter Design Style Of the style of the Sacred writings Mistakes of many about it The nature of Eloquence Excellency of Scripture Style Energie Efficacy Tradition concerning the Authority of this Epistle not justly lyable to any exceptions from the Author Circumstances Subject Matter Style Testimonyes Conclusion THe Canonical Authority of the Epistle unto the Hebrews having § 1 been by some called into Question we must in our entrance declare both what it is which we intend thereby as also the clear interest of this Epistle therein for this is the foundation of all those ensuing discourses from it and that exposition of it which we intend The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which gives rise unto that term Canonical § 2 seems to be derived from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kaneh and this as it sometimes denotes an Aromatical cane that contained spices in it used in the worship of God as Isai. 43. v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou hast bought me no sweet Cane with silver for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 precious Cane growing not in their own Countrey was bought from a far off Jer. 6.20 so in general it signifies any reed whatever 1 Kings 14.15 Isai. 42.3 whence a multitude of fierce and wicked men compared to the devouring Crocodile whose lurking place is in the canes or reeds are termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beast of the reed Psal. 68.30 Particularly it signifies a reed made into an instrument wherewith they measured their buildings containing six Cubits in length Ezek. 40.7 Chap. 42.16 And hence indefinitely it is taken for a Rule or a Measure Besides it signifies the jugum or scapus or beam with the tongue of a ballance keeping the poyse of the scales equal and discovering the rectitude or declensions thereof Isai. 46.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they weighed silver on the Cane that is saith the Targum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ballance the supporter and director of the scales being put for the whole The Rabbins call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reed of the scales that which tryes and weighs and gives every thing its just moment § 3 And this also is the first and proper signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Canon So the Scholiast on that of Aristophanes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly that which is over the scales bringing them and the things weighed in them to equality The very same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which it is derived So Varinus tells us that it is properly the tongue in the ballance and in use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Aristotle sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that which is right we know its self and that which is crooked for the Canon is judge of both where he useth the word for any kind of rule or measure answering unto the other signification of Kaneh in the Hebrew Rectum and Canon that which is right and the rule are one and the same the one expression denoting the nature of any thing the other its Use and Application § 4 From this original proper importance of the word is its metaphorical use deduced which is most Common and therein it signifiâ—s a moral Rule or a measure for direction tryall and judgement Hence the Philosopher calls the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the administration or government of the Common-wealth that whereby all the parts of it arâ— disposed into their proper places whereby they are regulated and all things done in it are tryed and judged And in this sense it is applyed by St. Paul unto divine Revelation Gal. 6.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as many as proceed orderly that is in a direct way for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes according to this rule or Canon And to the same purpose he useth again the samâ— expression Phil. 3.16 For as the words of the Scripture are in themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words of Truth so the writing it self is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a right writing or as the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is written in uprightness to be a rule and Judge unto all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Genitivus adjuncti not materiae declaring the property of the writing not the subject matter that is it is Canonical for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is right and a rule we have shewed to be the same And from hence it is that the Scripture or written Word of God being in it self every way absolutely right and perfect and appointed by him to be the Rule or Canon of the Churches faith and obedience requiring trying regulating judging wholly and absolutely of them is become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Psalms and Prophets was very antient in their Church We have mention of it Luke 24.44 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that are written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms that is in the whole Canonical Scripture And evident it is that this distribution is taken from the subject matter of those principal parts of it This reason of that distribution which they have by Tradition they not knowing or neglecting have feigned the rise of it in a different manner of Revelation and cast the particular books arbitrarily under what heads they pleased as is evident from sundry of them which they reckon unto the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cethubim or Hagiographa which are with them of least esteem But we have a more sure rule both overthrowing that feigned distinction and perfectly equalizing all parts of divine Scripture as to their spring and original St. Peter calls the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1.19 the word of Prophesie and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. Prophesie and therefore it belongs not unto any peculiar part of it to be given out by Prophesie which is an affection of the whole And St. Paul also terms the whole Scriptuâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 16.26 prophetical Scriptures or writings of the Prophets And when he demanded of Agrippa whether he believed the Scriptures he doth it in the same manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 28.23 believest thou the prophets that is the Scriptures written by the spirit of Prophesie or by the inspiration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 1.12 of the spirit of Christ that was in them God of old spake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1.1 in his Revelation of himself unto them and in them and equally spake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 1.70 unto them by the mouth of his holy Prophets from the beginning And thus not this or that part but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 3.16 all Scripture was given by inspiration And herein all the parts or books of it are absolutely equall And in the giving out of the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1.21 holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost So that whatever different means God at any time might make use of in the communication of his mind and will unto any of the Prophets or penmen of the Scripture it was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being acted by the holy Ghost both as to Things and Words that rendred them infallible Revealers of him unto the Church And thus the foundation of the Canonical authority of the books of the Scripture is absolutely the same in and unto them all without the least variety either from any difference in kind or degree § 9 The same is their condition as to their being Canonical they are all so equally Some of the Antients used that term ambiguously and therefore sometimes call books Canonical that absolutely are not so as not being written by divine inspiration nor given by the Holy Ghost to be any part of the Rule of the Churches faith and obedience Thus the Constantinopolitan Council in Trulla confirms the Canons both of the Synod of Laodicea and the third of Carthage which agree not in the Catalogues they give us of books Canonical which without a supposition of the ambiguity of the word could not be done unless they would give an assent unto a plain and open contradiction And the Council of Carthage makes evident its sense in their Appendiâ—e annexed to the one and fortieth Canon wherein they reckon up the books of the holy Scripture Hoc etiam say they fratri consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio vel aliis earum partium Episcopis pro confirmando isto Canone innotescat quia a patribus ista accepimus legenda liceat etiam legi passiones Martyrum cùm Aniversarii dies celebrantur They speak dubiously concerning their own determination and intimate that they called the books they enumerated Canonical only as they might be read in the Church which priviledge they grant also to the stories of the sufferings of the Martyrs which yet none thought to be properly canonical The same Epiphanius testifies of the Epistles of Clemens But as the books which that Synod added to the Canon of Laodicea are rejected by Melito Origen Athanasius Hilarius Gregorius Nazianzen Cyrillus Hierosolimitamus Epiphanius Ruffinus Hierome Gregorius magnus and others so their reading and Citation is generally declared by them to have been only for direction of manners and not for the confirmation of the faith even as St. Paul cited an Iambick out of Mâ—nandâ—r or rather Euripides 1 Cor. 15.33 an hemistichium out of Aratus Acts 17.28 and a whole Hexameter out of Epimenides Tit. 1.12 non sunt canonici sed leguntur Catechumenis saith Athanasius They are not Canonical but are only read to the Cateâ—humeni And Hierome the Church reads them ad aedificationem plebis non ad Authâ—ritatem Ecclesiasticarum dogmatum confirmandam for the edification of the people but not for the confirmation of any points of faith But although some books truly Canonical were of old amongst some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius speaks doubted of and some were commonly read that are certainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rejectitious yet neither the mistake of the former nor later practice can give any countenance to an Apprehension of a second or various sort of books properly canonical For the interest of any book or writing in the canon of the Scripture accrewing unto it as hath been shewed meerly from its divine inspiration and giving by the Holy Ghost for a Rule measure and standard of faith and obedience unto the Church whatever advantage or worth to commend it any writing may have Yet if it have not the propertiâ—s mentioned of Divine inspiration and Confirmation it differs in the whole kind and not in degrees only from all those that have them so that it can be no part regulae regulantis but regulatae at the best not having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a self-credibility on its own account or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a self-sufficing Authority but is truth only materially by vertue of its Analogie unto that which is absolutely universally and perfectly so And this was well observed by Lindanus Impio saith he sacrilegio se contaminant qui in scripturarum christianarum corpore quosdam quasi gradus conantur locare quod unam eandemque spiritus sancti vocem impio humanae stultitiae discerniculo audent in varias impares discerpere disturbare Autoritatis classes They desile themselves with the impiety of Sacriledge who endeavour to bring in as it were divers degrees into the body of the Scriptures for by the impious discretion of humane folly they would cast the one voice of the Holy Ghost into various forms of unequal Authority As then whatever difference there may be as to the subject
Authority of Prophets and their being Prophets gave not Authority to the Word they declared or wrote as a Word of Prophesie Hence an anxious enquiry after the Penman of any part of the Scripture is not necessary But whereas there want not Evidences sufficient to discover who was the Writer of this Epistle whereby also the exceptions made unto its Divine Original may be finally obviated they also shall be taken into Consideration A Subject this is wherein many Learned Men of Old and of Late have exercised themselves until this single Argument is grown up into entire and large Treatises and I shall only take care that the Truth which hath been already strenuously asserted and vindicated may not again by this review be rendred dubious and questionable St. Paul it is by whom we affirm this Epistle to be written It is acknowledged that § 2 this was so highly questioned of Old that Origen after the examination of it concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is the very Truth in this matter God only knows However he acknowledgeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antients owned it to be written by Paul and that he sayes not without good Reason whereas the ascription of it unto any other he assigns unto a bare report It may not then be expected that now after so long a season the Truth of our Assertion should be so manifestly evinced as to give absolute satisfaction unto all which is a vain thing for any man to aim at in a Subject wherein men suppose that they have a liberty of thinking what they please yet I doubt not but that it will appear not only highly probable but so full of Evidence in comparison of any other Opinion that is or hath been promoted in competition with it as that some kind of blameable pertinaciousness may be made to appear in its refusal Now the whole of what I shall offer in the proof of it may be reduced unto these six Heads 1. The manifest failure of all them who have endeavoured to assign it unto any other Penman 2. The insufficiency of the Arguments insisted on to disprove our Assertion 3. Testimony given unto it in other Scriptures 4. Considerations taken from the Writing it self compared with other acknowledged Writings of the same Author 5. The general suffrage of Antiquity or Ecclesiastical Tradition 6. Reasons taken from sundry Circumstances relating unto the Epistle its self Now as all these Evidences are not of the same nature nor of equal force so some of them will be found very cogent and all of them together very sufficient to free our Assertion from just Question or Exception First The Vncertainty of them who question whether Paul were the Writer of this § 3 Epistle and their want of probable grounds in assigning it unto any other hath some inducement in it to leave it unto him whose of Old it was esteemed to be For when once men began to take to themselves a liberty of Conjecture in this matter they could neither make an end themselves nor fix any bounds unto the imagination of others Having once lost its true Author no other could be asserted with any such evidence or indeed probability but that instantly twenty more with as good Grounds and Reasons might be entitled unto it Accordingly sundry Persons have been named all upon the same account that some thought good to name them and why should not one mans Authority in this matter be as good as anothers Origen in Eusebius affirms that some supposed Luke to have been the Author of § 4 this Epistle But neither doth he approve their Opinion nor mention what Reasons they pretend for it He adds also that some esteemed it to be written by Clemens of Rome Clemens of Alexandria allows St. Paul to be the Author of it but supposeth it might be Translated by Luke because as he saith the Style of it is not unlike that of his in the Acts of the Apostles Grotius of late contends for Luke to be the Author of it on the same account but the instances which he gives rather argue a Coincidence of some Words and Phrases than a similitude of Style which things are very different Hierom also tells us that juxta quosdam videtur esse Lucae Evangelistae by some it was thought to be written by Luke the Evangelist which he took from Clemens Origen and Eusebius only he mentions nothing of the similitude of Style with that of St. Luke but afterwards informs us that in his Judgement there is a great Conformity in Style between this Epistle and that of Clemens Romanus None of them acquaint us who were the Authors or Approvers of this Conjeciure nor do they give any credit themselves unto it Neither is there any Reason of this Opinion reported by them but only that intimated by Clemens of the Agreement of the Style with that of the Acts of the Apostles which yet is not allowed by Hierom whereon he doth not ascribe the Writing but only the Translation of it unto Luke Grotius alone contends for him to be the Author of it and that with this only Argument that sundry words are used in the same sense by St. Luke and the Writer of this Epistle But that this Observation is of no moment shall afterwards be declared This Opinion then may be well rejected as a groundless guess of an obscure unknown Original and not tolerably confirmed either by Testimony or Circumstances of things If we will forego a Perswasion established on so many important Considerations as we shall manifest this of St. Pauls being the Author of this Epistle to be and confirmed by so many Testimonies upon every arbitrary ungrounded Conjeciure we may be sure never to find rest in any thing that we are rightly perswaded of But I shall add one Consideration that will cast this Opinion of Grotius quite out of the limits of probability By general Consent this Epistle was written whilst James was yet alive and presided in the Church of the Hebrews at Jerusalem and I shall afterwards prove it so to have been What was his Authority as an Apostle what his Reputation in that Church is both known in general from the nature of his Office and in particular is intimated in the Scripture Acts 15.13 Gal. 2.9 These were the Hebrews whose instruction in this Epistle is principally intended and by their means that of their Brethren in the Eastern Dispersion of them Now is it Reason to imagine that any one who was not an Apostle but only a Scholar and Follower of them should be used to write unto that Church wherein so great an Apostle a Pillar among them had his especial Residence and did actually Preside and that in an Argument of such huge importance with Reasons against a practice wherein they were all ingaged yea that Apostle himself as appears Gal. 2.12 Were any one then alive of more esteem and Reputation in the Church than others certainly He
Exception insisted on though perhaps not containing the true at least the whole Cause of the Omission of an Apostolical Salutation in the entrance of it If then we would know the True and Just Cause of the Omission of the Authors § 19 name and mention of his Apostolical Authority in the entrance of this Epistle we must consider what were the Just Reasons of prefixing them unto his other Epistles Chrysostome in his Proem unto the Epistle to the Romans gives this as the only Reason of the mentioning the Name of the Writer of any Epistle in the Frontispiece of it otherwise than was done by Moses and the Evangelists in their Writings namely because they wrote unto them that were present and so had no cause to make mention of their own Names which were well enough known without the premising of them in their Writings whereas those who wrote Epistles dealing with them that were absent were necessitated to prefix their Names unto them that they might know from whom they came But yet this Reason is not absolutely satisfactory for as they who prefixed not their Names to their Writings wrote not only for the use and Benefit of those that were present and knew them but of all succeeding Ages who knew them not so many of them who did Preach and Write the Word of the Lord unto those that lived with them and knew them yet prefixed their Names unto their Writings as did the Prophets of Old and some who did write Epistles to them who were absent omitted so to do as St. John and the Author of this Epistle The real cause then of prefixing the Names of any of the Apostles unto their Writings was meerly the Introduction thereby of their Titles as Apostles of Jesus Christ and therein an Intimation of that Authority by and with which they wrote This then was the true and only reason why the Apostle St. Paul prefixed his Name unto his Epistles sometimes indeed this is omitted when he wrote unto some Churches where he was well known and his Apostolical Power was sufficiently owned because he joyned others with himself in his Salutation who were not Apostles as the Epistle to the Philippians chap. 1. and the second of the Thessalonians Unto all others he still prefixeth this Title declaring himself thereby to be one so authorized to reveal the Mysteries of the Gospel that they to whom he Wrote were to acquiesce in his Authority and to resolve their faith into the Revelation of the Will of God made unto him and by him the Church being to be built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles And hence it was that when something he had taught was called in question and opposed Writing in the Vindication of it and for their establishment in the Truth whom before he had instructed he doth in the entrance of his Writings singularly and Emphatically mention this his Authority Gal. 1.1 Paul an Apostle neither of man nor by man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him from the dead so intimating the absolute obedience that was due unto the Doctrine by him revealed By this Title I say he directs them to whom he wrote to resolve their assent into the Authority of Christ speaking in him which he tenders unto them as the proof and foundation of the Mysteries wherein they were instructed In his dealing with the Hebrews the case was far otherwise They who believed amongst them never changed the old foundation or Church-State grounded on the Scriptures though they had a new addition of Priviledges by their Faith in Christ Jesus as the Messiah now exhibited And therefore he deals not with them as with those whose Faith was built absolutely on Apostolical Authority and Revelation but upon the common Principles of the Old Testament on which they still stood and out of which Evangelical Faith was educed Hence the beginning of the Epistle wherein he appeals to the Scripture as the foundation that he intended to build upon and the Authority which he would press them withal supplies the Room of that intimation of his Apostolical Authority which in other places he maketh use of And it serves to the very same purpose For as in those Epistles he proposeth his Apostolical Authority as the immediate reason of their Assent and Obedience so in this he doth the Scriptures of the Old Testament And this is the true and proper cause that renders the prefixing of his Apostolical Authority which his Name must necessarily accompany needless because useless it being that which he intended not to ingage in this business And for himself he sufficiently declares in the close of his Epistle who he was for though some may imagine that he is not so certainly known unto us from what he there sayes of himself yet none can be so fond to doubt whether he were not thereby known to them to whom he wrote so that neither hath this Objection in it any thing of real weight or moment § 20 We have spoken before unto the Haesitation of the Latin Church which by some is objected especially by Erasmus and given the Reasons of it manifesting that it is of no force to weaken our Assertion unto which I shall now only add that after it was received amongst them as Canonical it was never questioned by any Learned Man or Synod of old whether St. Paul was the Author of it or no but they all with one consent ascribed it unto him as hath been at large by others declared The remaining Exceptions which by some are insisted on are taken from some passages in the Epistle it self that principally of Chap. 2. and the Third where the Writer of it seems to reckon himself among the number not of the Apostles but of their Auditors But whereas it is certain and evident that the Epistle was written before the Destruction of the Temple yea the beginning of those Wars that ended therein or the death of James whilest sundry of the Apostles were yet alive it cannot be that the Penman of it should really place himself amongst the generation that succeeded them so that the Words must of necessity admit of another Interpretation as shall be manifested in its proper place for whereas both this and other things of the same nature must be considered and spoken unto in the places where they occurr I shall not here anticipate what of necessity must be insisted on in its due season especially considering of how small importance the Objections taken from them are And this is the summ of what hath as yet by any been objected unto our assignation of this Epistle unto St. Paul by the consideration whereof the Reader will be directed into the Judgement he is to make on the Arguments and Testimonies that we shall produce in the Confirmation of our Assertion and these we now proceed unto under the several Heads proposed in the entrance of our Discourse § 21 Amongst the Arguments usually insisted on to prove
and Grace it will yield men no satisfaction which makes them constantly turn aside to other means and wayes of knowing and serving God This being so eminent in the Jews and the Medium they have fixed on to supply that want which they suppose to be in the Scripture but is indeed in themselves proving to be the great Engine of their hardening and obstinacy in their Infidelity I shall first declare what it is that they intend by the Orall Law and then briefly shew the absurdity and falseness of their pretensions about it though it must not be denyed that it is one of the most Antient Fables that is credited amongst any of the Sons of men at this day in the world § 6 This Orall Law they affirm to be an unwritten Tradition and Exposition of the written Law of Moses given unto him in Mount Sinai and committed by him to Joshua and the Sanhedrim to be by them delivered over by Orall Tradition unto those who should succeed them in the Government of that Church It doth not appear that in the dayes of Christ or his Apostles whilest the Temple was standing that there was any stated opinion amongst them about this Orall Law though it is evident that not long after it began to be received by the body of the People Nay it is evident that there was no such Law then acknowledged For the Sadduces who utterly reject all the main Principles of it were then not only tolerated but also in chief Rule one of them being High Priest That they had multiplyed many superstitious Observances amongst them under the name of Traditions is most clear in the Gospel and it doth not appear that then they knew whom to assign their original unto and therefore indefinitely called them the Traditions of the Elders or those that lived of old before them After the Destruction of their Temple when they had lost the life and spirit of that Worship which the Scripture revealed betaking themselves wholly unto their Traditional figments they began to bethink themselves how they might give countenance to their Apostacy from the Perfection and Doctrine of the written Law For this end they began to fancy that these Traditions were no less from God than the written Law it self For when Moses was forty dayes and forty nights in the Mountain they say that in the day time he wrote the Law from the mouth of God and in the night God instructed him in the Orall Law or unwritten Exposition of it which they have received by Tradition from him For when he came down from the Mount after he had read unto them the Written Law as they say he repeated to Aaron and Eleazer and the Sanhedrim all that secret instruction which he had received in the night from God which it was not lawfull for him to write but in especial he committed the whole to Joshua Joshua did the same to Eleazer as he did to his Son Phiâ—eas after whom they give us a Catalogue of several Prophets that lived in the ensuing generations all whom they employ in this service of conveying down the Orall Law to their Successors The High Priests also they give a place unto in this work of whom there were eighty three from the first Institution of that Office to the destruction of the Temple Joseph lib. 20. cap. 18. From Aaron to the building of Solomons Temple thirteen from thence to the Captivity eighteen all the rest take up the troublesome time of the Apostacy of their Church unto the finall ruine of it their Rulers being many because of their wickedness as themselves observe The last Person whom they would have to preserve the Orall Law absolutely pure was that Simeon whom they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Just mentioned by Jesus the Son of Syrach Chap. 50. And it is very observable that the latter Jews have left out Simeon the Son of Hillel whom their antient Masters placed upon the Roll of the Preservers of this Treasure supposing he might be that Simeon who in his old age received our Saviour in his arms when he was presented in the Temple Luke 2.25 a crime sufficient among the Jews to brand him with a perpetual ignominy neither are they alone in turning mens glory into reproach and shame After the destruction of the Temple and City when the evil Husbandmen were slain § 7 and the Vineyard of the Lord let out to others the Kingdom given to another Nation and therewith the Covenant sanctified use of the Scripture the remaining Jews having lost wholly the mind of God therein betook themselves to their Traditions and as I said before began to fancy and contend that they came from God himself whereas their Predecessors durst not plead any thing for them but that they came unto them from thâ—m of old that is some of the Masters of preceding Generations Hereupon a while after as I have elsewhere shewed at large one of them whom they call Rabbi Judâ— Humâ—si and Hakkadosh the Prince and the Holy took upon him to gather their scattered Traditions and to cast them into form order and method in Writing that they might be unto the Jews a Rule of Life and Worship for ever The Story of his work and undertaking is given us by Maimonides in Jad Chazacha the Authors of Sedar Olâ—â—n Halicoth Olam Tzemach David and many others and they all agree that this their great Master lived about the times of Marcus Antoninus two hundred years or thereabouts after the destruction of City and Temple This Collection of his they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mishne or Mishnaioth being as is § 8 pretended 〈◊〉 repetition of the Law in an Exposition of it indeed a farrago of all sorts of Traditions true and false with a monstrous mixture of Lyes useless foolish and wicked The things contained in it are by themselves referred to five heads 1. The Orall Law received by Moses on Mount Sinai preserved by the means before declared 2. Orall Constitutions of Moses himself after he came down from the Mount 3. Constitutions and Orders drawn by various wayes of arguing 13. as Rambam tells us out of the written Law 4. The Answers and Decrees of the Sanhedrim and other wise men in former Ages 5. Immemoriall Customs whose original being unknown are supposed to be divine The Whole is divided into six parts noted with the initial letter of the word which § 9 signifies the chief things treated on in it As the first by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 z that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zeraim Seeds which is divided into eleven Massicktot or Treatises containing all of them seventy five Chapters The second by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moad or appointed feasts which is distributed into Twelve Massicktot containing in them eighty eight Chapters The Third by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Women and is distributed in
supream Principles of things a good one and a bad one Thus for the most part the first Question of a Romanist is How do you know the Scriptures to be the Word of God and then the next word is the Cabala the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orall Law Tradition these are the Foundation of it And in their progress they fail not to assert two Principles both borrowed from the Jews First That the Scripture is imperfect and doth not give us a full and compleat account of all things that are to be believed or practised that God may be glorified and our own souls saved Secondly That what is delivered therein can no way be rightly and truly understood but by the help of those Traditions which they have in their custody But although these are good usefull Inventions and they are men that want not Ability to find out what is conducing unto their own advantage yet they cannot be allowed the Credit of being their first Authors seeing they are expresly borrowed of the Jews § 19 Fourthly When these two Laws the Law of God and their own do come in competition the Jews many of them do expresly prefer that of their own invention before the other and that both as to certainty and use Hence they make it the foundation of their Church and the only safe means to preserve the Truth So are we informed by Isaac Corbulensis in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do not think saith he that the written Law is the Foundation for the Foundation is the Orall Law For by that Law was the Covenant made as it is written according to these words do I make a Covenant with thee Exod. 34.27 where he takes his Argument from that Expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wresting foolishly as they do all his Orall Law from those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie nothing but according to nor are any other words intended but those delivered to Moses and written by him And these he adds are the Treasures of the Holy Blessed God For he knew that Israel should be carried Captive among other People and that the Nations would transcribe their Books and therefore would not commit their secret Law to Writing It seems these things were left them in secret Tradition because God was not willing that any besides themselves should know his Mind and Will but they have at last shewed themselves more full of benignity towards mankind than they would allow God to be in as much as they have committed this Secret Law to Writing And to this purpose is their Confession in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Golden Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is impossible for us to stand or abide upon the Foundation of our holy Law which is the written Law unless it be by the Orall Law which is the Exposition thereof Wherein they not only declare their Judgements concerning their Traditions but also express the Reason of their obstinate adherence unto them which is that without it they cannot maintain themselves in their present Judaism And so indeed is the case with them innumerable Testimonies of the Scriptures rising up directly against their Infidelity they were not able to keep their station but by an horrible corrupting of them through their Traditions On this account it is a common thing with them in the advise they give unto their Disciples to prefer the Study of the Talmud before the Study of the Scripture and the sayings of their Wise men before the sayings of the Prophets and plainly express an utter disregard of the Written Word any farther than as they suppose the sense of it explained in their Orall Law Neither are they here forsaken by their Associates The principal design of all the Books which have been lately published by the Romanists and they have not been a few hath been to prove the Certainty and Sufficiency of their Traditions in matters of their Faith and Worship above that of the Written Word § 20 Fifthly There are some few remaining among the Eastern Jews who reject all this Story concerning the Orall Law and professedly adhere unto the Written Word only These the Masters of their present Religion and Perswasion do by common consent brand as Hereticks calling them Scripturists or Scripturarians or Biblists the very name of reproach wherewith the Romanists stigmatize all those who reject their Traditions These are their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Biblists or Scripturarians and every where they term them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hereticks and endeavour to prove them guilty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Heresie in the highest degree Some of them would have them to be the Offspring of the old Sadducees to deny the Resurrection and the World to come as men care not much usually what they impute unto those whom they esteem Hereticks But the falsity hereof is notorious and so acknowledged by others and confuted by the Writings of the Karaeans themselves Yea the Author of Cosri affirms that they are more studious in the Law than the Rabbins and that their Reasons were more weighty than theirs and lead more towards the naked sense of the Scripture But this is that which they charge upon them namely that rejecting the sure Rule of their Traditions they run into singular Expositions of the Law and so divided it and made many Laws of it having no certain means of Agreement among themselves So saith Rabbi Jehuda Levita the Author of the fore-mentioned Cosri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Karaeans multiply Laws according to their own Opinion which he inveighs against them for after he had commended them And the same is objected against them by Maimonides on Pirke Aboth As though it were not known that the greatest part of their Talmud the Sacred Treasury of their Orall Law is taken up with differences and Disputes of their Masters among themselves with a multitude of various Opinions and contradictory conceptions about their Traditions Thus deal the Romanists also which their Adversaries this they charge them withall They are Hereticks Biblists and by adhering to the Scripture alone have no certainty among themselves but run into diversities of Opinions as having deserted the unerring Rule of their Cabala when the world is filled with the noise of their own conflicts notwithstanding the pretended relief which they have thereby It remains that we consider how these Traditions come to be communicated unto others out of the secret Store-house wherein Originally they were deposited This as I have elsewhere and partly before declared was by their being committed unto writing by Rabbi Juda Hakkadosh whose collections with their Expositions in their Talmud do give us a perfect account if we may believe them of that secret Law which came down unto them by Orall Tradition from Moses And something like hereunto is by the Romanists pretended Many of their Traditions they say are recorded in the Rescripts of Popes Decrees of Councils and Constitutions of the Canon Law and the like sacred means of
the Mâ—ssiah especially that Prophesie Zech. 12. v. 10. They shall look upon me whom they have piâ—râ—ed And hereby they sufficiently discover the Occasion of the whole figment to have been that before intimated namely a necessity of an evasion from those Testimonies of Scripture and antient Traditions which assign sorrows and sufferings unto the Mâ—ssiah which they will not allow to belong unto the Son of David A brief account may be given of what it is that they now ascribe unto this § 12 Messiah and what it is that they expect from him The whole of his story depends on that of one Armillus against whom he shall fall in Battel whose Legend we must therefore also touch upon And this is given us at large in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the seventh sign of the coming of the Mâ—ssiah and with some variation in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Colloquy between Zerubbabel and Michael the Archangel A Fable it is of no small Antiquity for we have mention of him not only in the latter Targums on the Hâ—giographa but in that of Jonathan also on the Prophet Isa. 11.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the word of his mouth he shall slay the wicked Armillus And yet this invention is not older then the Talmud however it came into that Targum which for the main of it was certainly written long before The Mother of this Armillus is they say to be a Stâ—tua of stone at Rome wrought into the similitude of a beautiful Woman This saith the Dialogue of Zerubbabel is the Wife of Belial and Armillus that shall be born of her is to be the head of all Idolatry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Armillus the Son of the Stone which is in the house of filth of the Scorners that is the Churches of the Christians shall be the Tenth King that shâ—ll afflict Israel The Author of Abkath Râ—chel gives us somewhat another account of his Nativity The People of all Nations saith he allured with the beauty of the Image shall come to Rome and commit fornication with it from whose uncleanness at length Armillus shall be born The same Author after a description of his stature and bigness for he shall be twelve Cubits high and as broad as he is long with his hair eyes and whole complexion gives us also an account of his Actions and proceedings First therefore he shall give himself out to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hereticks that is Christians to be their Messiah who gave them their Law saying unto them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am Messiah I am your God and they shall presently embrace him and give him their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prayer Books acknowledging him to be the Author of them After this by the hâ—lp of the Edomites Romans he shall conquer many Nations untill coming unto the Jews he shall require of them to receive him as their Mâ—ssiah and the Author of their Law But these good Jews shall with one consent oppose him under the Conduct of Messiah Ben Joseph and Nehemiah the Son of Husiel sayes one of Menachem the Son of Ammiel sayes another And in this War shall Messiah Ben Joseph be slain as it is written Zech. 12. v. 10. I shall stay a little by the way to unriddle this aenigmatical Fable it having not been § 13 by any attempted The named Armillus some suppose to be formed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Waster of the People for such they intend he shall be But the Truth is as Broughton first observed and sundry others have assented unto him it is no other then Romulus with the usual Chaldee formation by Aleph For whereas he contends that it should be read Romulus and not Armillus or Armilus there is no necessity for it For the Coyners of the Fable might either ignorantly mistake the name as is usual with these Masters or on purpose obscure it that it might not at first view be known by the Christians of whom they were afraid And by Romulus who was the first Founder of the City and Empire they intend a Prince of Rome for such they declare their Armillus to be And the whole story of him is compounded out of some Prophetical passages and expressions in the Revelation of St. John or is feigned by themselves from the Event of things mixing their own conceits with the Opinions of some Christians concerning Antichrist For they plainly say that this Armillus is called by the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antichristus Image Worship in the Revelation as in the Old Testament is expressed by the name of Fornication and Rome because of her abounding therein is called the Mother of Harlots Hence the Image at Rome in the Church is become the Mother of Armillus and that by the People of all Nations committing Fornication with it which is the rise assigned unto Antichristian Power in the Revelation This then is that which in their way they aim at The Worship of Images in Churches bâ—gun and promoted at Rome furthered by the consent of the Nations shall bring forth that Roman Power which shall seek to destroy the Israel of God § 13 And I am the rather enclined unto this conjâ—cture because I find that they are some of them not utter strangers unto the Book of the Revelations as those of them who are Cabbalistical have a great desire to be enquiring into things Mystical which they understand not which they wrest and corrupt unto their own imaginations Bâ—sides it may be they are pleased with that description that is in it of the New Jerusalem which some Judaizing Christians of old wrested unto a restauration of the earthly City of Jerusalem and the renewed observation of the Law of Moses Thus the Author of the Questions and Answers published by Brenius Qu. 26. enquires how Christians interpret those words of the Revelation Chap. 13. v. 18. here is Wisdom let him that hath understanding count the number of the Beast for it is the number of a man and his number is 666. to which he adds I have heard of none who hath clearly interpreted this place but I can give a good interpretation of it It is very likely he had considered it though possibly his interpretation which he was not pleased to declare was little worth And the Visions of Rabbi Joshuâ— about the Heavenly Paradise with the gates of it made of precious stones wherein are mixed many Fables â—ot unlike those about Mâ—homets entrance into Heaven in the Alâ—orâ—n were originally taken from the Aâ—egoricaâ— description given us of the Nâ—w Jeruâ—alem in that Book and abused to their superstitions And from the same fountain it is that they have got a great Tradition among them that they shall not be delivered untill Rome be destroyed For understanding Rome by Babylon in that Prophesie they apply that unto themselves which is foretold upon its destruction concerning the Church of Christ. So Rabbi in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bundle
Joseph or Ephraim Armillus having received § 15 a defeat by Nehemiah Ben Husiel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shaâ—â— gather the forces of all the Nations of the world into the vallâ—y of decision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shall fight with Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they shall slay of them of Armillus his Army heaps or multitudes on heaps and they shall finite a few of Israel and they shall slay the Messiah of the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the ministring Angâ—lls shall come and perfuming his body shall lay it up with the antient Fathers where it is to be kept many dayes without putrefaction as Hâ—ctors Body was in Homer after he was slain by Achilles And it is not unlikely but that they may allude somewhat to the Prophesie of the two Witnesses Rev. 11. who were to be slain and afterwards called up to Heaven Thus do they at their pleasure dispose of this creature of their own for having framed him themselves he is their own to do with him what they will alive and dead But that which is the poyson and sting of this Fable is that the death of this fictitious Messiah must amongst them bear all that is spoken in the Scripture or continued by Tradition concerning the Humiliation suffering and death of the true Messiah of the Lord. § 16 We need not stay long in the removall of this Mormo out of our way Should they invent twenty other Messiahs as they have done this and which on the same grounds and with as good Authority they may the case would still be the same Who gave them power to substitute themselves in the place of God to give New Promises to appoint New Saviours and to invent new wayes of Deliverance The Scripture is utterly silent of any such person nor have they any Antetalmudical Tradition concerning him And what their Masters have invented in the Talmuds is of no more Authority then what they coyn every day themselves The truth is this whole story of Armillus and Ben Joseph is a Talmudical Romance the one the Giant the otheâ— the Knight But these fictions seria ducunt Poor creatures are hardened by them unto their eternal destruction But is the world bound to believe what every one whom they are pleased to call Rabbi can imagine though never so contrary to the Principles of that Religion which themselves pretend to own and profess so indeed some of them say that if their Masters teach the right hand to be the left yea Heaven to be Hell yet their Authority is not to be questioned and as I remember others say some such things of the Pope But God I hope of his Goodness will not suffer poor mankind to be alwayes so deluded All the Promises of God all the Prophesies from the foundâ—tion of the world concern only one Messiah of the Seed of Abraham of the Tribe of Judah and of the family of David All the faith of the Church of old as we have proved respected that one only And who will lay any weight upon what is spoken foretold or promised concerning him if the Jews have power to invent another at their pleasure § 17 Again Their Masters have not only dealt dishonestly and blasphemously but foolishly also in this matter in that they have not suited their own creature unto the Ends for which they have made him The End as was shewed before why they advanced this imagination was to give countenance unto what is spoken in the Scriptures or retained by themselves in Tradition concerning the sufferings of the Messiah And it is somewhat strange to me that having raised up this Ben Joseph they did not use him worse then they have done but by a little foolish Pity have spoiled their own whole design They have a Tradition among themselves that the Messiah must bear a third part of all the afflictions or persecutions that ever were or shall be in the world And what proportion doth a mans being slain in battel where his Army is victorious which is all the hardship this Ben Joseph is to meet withall bear unto the Afflictions which befall the Church in every Age And for the Scripture it is meer lost labour to compare the death of this Warriour with what is delivered therein concerning the sufferings of the Messiah Every one not judicially blinded must needs see that there is no affinity between them The fifty third Chapter of Isaiah is acknowledged by their Targum and sundry of the principal Masters of their faith to be a Prophesie concerning him and we shall afterwards undeniably prove it so to be Now the Person there spoken of is one whom the Jews are to reject and despise whom God is to aâ—flict and bruise by causing the sins of the whole Church to meet upon him One who by his sufferings is to fulfill the pleasure of the Lord making his Soul an Offering for sin justifying the Elect and conquering Satan by his Death This fictiâ—â—ous Messiah is to be honoured of all the Jews to raise Armies to fight a Battel and therein after the manner of other men to be slain So that a story was never worse told nor to less purpose No other use can be made of it that I know of but only to consider in it the blindness of poor obstinate sinners given up unto hardness of heart and a spirit of folly for the rejection of him whom God sealed annointed and sent to be the Saviour of the world Leaving them therefore in the embraces of this cloud we may consider the other expected Messiah whom they call Ben David in whom principally they place their confidence § 18 The Endless Fables of the Jews about their Messiah as they have been in part discovered by others so I design not here at large to recount them The chief Masters of them in the Talmud are full of disputes and contradictions about him and those of after Ages succeed them in their uncertainties Such will the conceptions of all men be when they take up fancies and opinions of their own in matters of Divine Revelation But some things there are wherein they all generally agree and those relating unto his Person Work and Office which it shall suffice to give an account of as answering our present Design First Therefore they contend that he shall be a meer man and there is nothing that they strive to avoid more then the Testimonies of Scripture which shew that the promised Messiah was to be God and man in one Person as hath been already evidenced They contend also that he shall be born after the manner of all men not of a Virgin but of a married Woman begotten by her Husband About the place of his birth they are not fully agreed for although they all acknowledge the Prophesie of Micah about Bethlehem to relate unto him Chap. 5.2 yet knowing that Town now to have been desolate for many Generations and waste without inhabitant which would seem to
that Covenant Jer. 31 31 32 33. The foundation of the New Covenant lyes in this that the people had disannulled and broken the former made with them Now surely they do not disannul that Covenant if they are righteous according to the tenor of it and unless they are so they say the Messiah will not come that is the New Covenant shall not be made unless by them it be first made needless Again the nature of the Covenant lyes in this that God in it makes men righteous and holy Ezekiel 11.19 So that righteousness and holiness cannot be the Condition of making it unless it be of making it useless This then is the contest between God and the Jews he takes it upon himself to give men righteousness by the Covenant of the Messiah they take it upon themselves to be righteous that he may make that Covenant with them Lastly If the coming of the Messiah depend on the Righteousness and repentance § 24 of the Jews it is not only possible but very probable that he may never come Themselves conceive that the world shall not continue above six thousand years Of this space they do not suppose that there is any more then five hundred remaining the time past since the expiration of the dayes determined for the coming of the Messiah is at least sixteen hundred years seeing that they have not repented all this while what assurance have we nay what hope may we entertain within the four or five hundred years that are behind Greater Calls to Repentance from God greater motives from themselves and others they are not like to meet withall And what ground have we to expect that they who have withstood all these Calls without any good fruit by their own confessions will ever be any better Upon this supposition then it would be very probable that the Messiah should never come Nothing can be replyed hereunto but that God will either at length effectually by his Grace give them that Repentance which they make necessary for his coming or that he will send him at last whether they repent or no But if either of these may be expected what reason can be imagined why God should so deal at any season concerning which he had made no promise that the Messiah should come therein and not do so at the time concerning which he had so often promised and foretold that he should come therein Exercitatio XVII The Third general Dissertation proving Jesus of Nazareth to be the only true and promised Messiah Jesus whom Paul preached the true Messiah First Argument from the time of his coming Foundation of this Argument unquestionable Coming of Jesus at the time appointed proved by Scripture Record and Catholick Tradition By the testimonies of Heathen Writers By the confession of the Talmudical Jews Jesus Christ intended by them in their story of Jesus the Son of Pandira and Stada No other came at that season by them owned Force of this Argument Characteristical notes of the Messiah given out in the Old Testament His Family Stock or Lineage confined unto the posterity of Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah David Our Lord Jesus of the posterity of Abraham and Tribe of Judah also of the Family of David Testimonies of the Evangelists vindicated Jesoes exceptions in general answered In particular the Genealogie not proved answered The Genealogie of Matthew declared and of Luke The place of the Birth of the Messiah Bethlehem Micah 5.2 Circumstances enforcing this consideration The Evangelists Citation of the words of the Prophet vindicated The Messiah to be born of a Virgin Isa. 7.10 11. and Matth. 1.21 22. Jews convinced that Jesus was born of a Virgin Jews exceptions to the Application of this Prophecy Their weight The answer of some unto them unsafe needless True sense of the words Exceptions answered The signification and use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greatness of the sign promised No other Virgin and Son designed but Jesus Christ and his Mother The Prophecy cleared in this instance In what sense the Birth of the Messiah a sign of present deliverance Remaining Objections answered Other Characters of the Messiah He was to be a Prophet Deut. 18.19 A Prophet like unto Moses Expected by the Jews Jesus Christ a Prophet That Prophet The nature of the Doctrine which he taught It s perfection The works of the Messiah revealed only in the Gospel of Christ also the nature and end of Mosaical Institutions Threatnings unto the disobedient fallen upon the Jews Sufferings are an other character of the Messiah his Passion foretold Psal. 22. The true Messiah therein intended Expositions of Kimchi and others confused Sufferings peculiar unto the Messiah The Psalm exactly fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Objections of the Jews from the principles of Christians answered Isa. 53. Prophecy of the suffering of the Messiah Consent of the Antient Jews Targum Bereshith Rabba Talmud Ashech Invalidity of exceptions of latter Rabbins Applications to the Lord Jesus vindicated Other Testimonies concerning the sufferings of the Messiah Jews Traditions to the same purpose Other Arguments proving Jesus to be the true Messiah Miracles The nature of them wrought by Christ proved Testimony of the Gospel Notoriety of Tradition Miracles of Christ compared with those of Moses Excelling them in number in manner of their being wrought in their nature in his giving power to others to effect them in his resurrection from the Dead continuance of them in the World Jews self-conviction evinced Causes of the miracles of Christ assigned by them Art Magical retorted removed The name of God Testimonies of his Disciples Success of the Doctrine of Jesus Last Argument THe third branch of that great supposition and fundamental Article of faith § 1 whereon the Apostle builds his Arguments and Reasonings wherewith he deals with the Hebrews is that Jesus whom he preached was the true and only promised Messiah who came forth from God for the accomplishment of his work according to the time determined and foretold The confirmation of this foundation of our faith and profession is that which now in the third place we must engage in A subject this is whereon I could insist at large with much satisfaction to my self nor have I just cause to fear that the matter treated of would be irksom to any Christian Reader But we must have respect unto our present design for it is not absolutely and of set purpose that we handle these things but meerly with respect unto that further end of opening the springs of the Apostles Divine reasonings in this Epistle and therefore must contract as much as may be the Arguments that we have to plead in this case And yet neither can this be so done but that some continuance of discourse will be unavoidably necessary And the course we shall proceed in is the same we have passed through in our foregoing demonstrations of the promise of the Messiah and of his coming Our Arguments are first to be produced and vindicated from the
The Teacher of Moses himself was Metatron He it is saith Elias that is the Angel alwayes appearing in the Presence of God of whom it is said My name is in him And the Talmudists that he hath power to blot out the sins of Israel whence they call him the Chancellour of Heaven And Bechai on Exod. 23. affirms that this name signifies both a Lord a Messenger and a Keeper A Lord because he ruleth all a Messenger because he stands alwayes before God to do his Will and a Keeper because he keepeth Israel I confess the Etymologie that he gives of this name to that purpose is weak and foolish as is also that of Elias who tells us that Metatron is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Tongue one sent But yet it is evident what is intended by all these obscure Intimations the increated Prince of Glory and his Exaltation over all with the Excellency of his name is aimed at For the word it self it is either a meer corruption of the Latin word Mediator such as is usual amongst them or a Gematrical Fiction to answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Almighty there being a coincidence in their numeral letters The Doctrine of the Preference and Preheminence of Christ is insisted on by the Apostle unto the End of this Chapter and therefore I shall not treat of it untill we have gone through all the Proof's of it produced and then but briefly neither having already in part spoken of it in our Consideration of his Soveraignty and Lordship over all That which we are peculiarly instructed in by these words is that All Preheminence and Exaltation of one above others depends on the supream Counsel and Will of God The instance he gives of him who is exalted over all sufficiently confirms our general Rule He had his Name denoting his Glory and excellency by Inheritance an heritage designed for him and given unto him in the Counsel Will and good pleasure of God He gave him that name above every name Phil. 2.9 And that of his own Will and pleasure It pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell That so in all things he might have the Preheminence Col. 1.16 17. He fore-ordained him unto it from Eternity 1 Pet. 1.20 and actually exalted him according to his Eternal Counsel in the fulness of time Acts 2.36 Chap. 5.31 This Prelation then of Christ above all depends on the Counsel and Pleasure of God and he is herein a Pattern of all Priviledge and Preheminence in others Grace Mercy and Glory spiritual things and eternal are those wherein really there is any difference among the Sons of men Now that any one in these things is preferred before another it depends meerly on the sole good pleasure of God No man in these things makes himself to differ from another neither hath he any thing that he hath not received God hath Mercy on whom he will have mercy And this Discrimination of all things by the Supream Will of God especially Spiritual and Eternal is the Spring Fountain and Rule of all that Glory which he will manifest and be exalted in unto Eternity Verse V. THe Apostle proceedeth to the confirmation of his Proposition concerning the Preheminence of the Lord Christ above the Angels and of his proof of it from the Excellency of the Name given unto him And this he doth by sundry Testimonies produced out of the Old Testament two whereof are conjoyned in this Verse as the Verses are divided in our Bibles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vulg. dixit aliquando said he sometimes for at any time Syr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from at any time said God Eloah God is supplyed needlesly though better than those who would render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impersonally was it said at any time For it is express in the Psalm from whence the words are taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord said The Lord said unto me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou my Son this day have I begotten thee The Elipsis of the Verb substantive in the Original which is perpetual is supplyed by the Apostle with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou art my Son Further difficulty in the Grammatical sense of the words there is not And hâ—re we shâ—ll close this Verse or at least consider this Testimony by its self Verse 5. Vnto which of the Angels did he at any time or ever say thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Two things are considerable in these words 1. The manner of the Apostles producing the Testimony which he intended to make use of Vnto which of the Angels said he at any time 2. The Testimony it self Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee In the former three things may be observed First That the Testimonie which in a matter of Faith he insisted on is that of the Scripture He refers the Jews unto that common Principle which was acknowledged between them Men had not as yet learned in such contests to make that cavilling return which we are now used unto How do you know those Scriptures to be the word of God Nor indeed is it suitable unto common Honesty for men to question the credit and prostitute the Authority of their own most Sacred Principles for no other end but to prejudice their Adversaries But our Apostle here confidently sends the Hebrews to the acknowledged Rule of their Faith and Worship whose Authority he knew they would not decline Isa. 8.21 Secondly That the Apostle argues negatively from the Authority and Perfection of the Scripture in things relating to Faith and the Worship of God It is no where said in the Scripture to Angels therefore they have not the Name spoken of or not in that manner wherein it is ascribed to the Messiah This Argument saith an Expositor of great name in this place seems to be weak and not unlike unto that which the Hereticks make use of in the like cases And therefore answers that the Apostle argues negatively not only from the Scripture but from Tradition also But this Answer is far more weak than the Argument is pretended to be The Apostle deals expresly in all this Chapter from the Testimony of Scripture and to that alone do his words relate and therein doth he issue the whole Controversie he had in hand knowing that the Jews had many corrupt Traditions expresly contrary to what he undertook to prove particularly that the Law of Moses was Eternally Obligatory against which he directly contends in the whole Epistle An Argument then taken negatively from the Authority of the Scripture in matters of Faith or what relates to the Worship of God is valid and effectual and here consecrated for ever to the use of the Church by the Apostle Thirdly That the Apostle either indeâ—d grants or else for Arguments sake condescends unto the Apprehension of the Hebrews that there is a distinction of degrees and preheminence amongst the Angels
God speaketh and I suppose we need no interposition of Church or Tradition to give Authority or Credit unto what he says or speaks This then is the sum of these words of the Apostle Again in another place where the Holy Ghost fore-tells the bringing forth into the world and amongst men him that is the Lord and Heir of all to undertake his work and to enter into his Kingdom and Glory the Lord speaks to this purpose Let all the Angels of God worship him To manifest this testimony to be apposite unto the confirmation of the Apostles assertion three things are required 1. That it is the Son who is intended and spoken of in the place from whence the words are taken and so designed as the Person to be worshipped 2. That they are Angels that are spoken unto and commanded to worship him 3. That on these suppositions the words prove the Preheminence of Christ above the Angels For the two former with them that acknowledge the Divine Authority of this Epistle it is sufficient in general to give them satisfaction The place is applied unto Christ and this passage unto the ministring Angels by the same Spirit who first wrote that Scripture But yet there is room left for our enquiry how these things may be evidenced whereby the strength of the Apostles Reasonings with them who were not yet convinced of the infallibility of his Assertions any farther than they were confirmed by testimonies out of the Old Testament and the faith of the Antient Church of the Hebrews in this matter may be made to appear as also a check given to their boldness who upon pretence of the impropriety of these Allegations have questioned the Authority of the whole Epistle And our first enquiry must be whence this testimony is taken Many of the Antients as Epiphanius Theodoret Euthymius Procopius and Anselm conceive the words to be cited from Deut. 32.42 where they expresly occur in the Translation of the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rejoyce ye Heavens with him and let all the Angels of God worship him But there are two considerations that put it beyond all pretensions that the words are not taken from this place of the LXX 1. Because indeed there are no such words in the Original Text nor any thing spoken that might give occasion to the sense expressed in them but that whole Verse is inserted in the Greek Version quite besides the scope of the place Now though it may perhaps be safely granted that the Apostles in citing the Scripture of the Old Testament did sometimes use the words of the Greek Translation then in use yea though not exact according to the Original whilst the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost was retained in them yet to cite that from the Scripture as the word and testimony of God which indeed is not therein nor was ever spoken by God but by humane failure and corruption crept into the Greek Version is not to be imputed unto them And indeed I no way question but that this addition unto the Greek Text in that place was made after the Apostle had used this testimony For it is not unlikely but that some considering of it and not considering from whence it was taken because the words occur not absolutely and exactly in the Greek any where inserted it into that place of Moses amidst other words of an alike sound and somewhat an alike importante such as immediately precede and follow the clause inserted 2. The Holy Ghost is not treating in that place about the Introduction of the First-born into the world but quite of another matter as is evident upon the first view of the Text so that this testimony is evidently not taken from this place nor would nor could the Apostle make use of a testimony liable unto such just exceptions Later Expositors generally agree that the words are taken out of Psal. 97. v. 7. where the Original is rendred by the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which with a very small variation in the words and none at all in the sense is here expressed by the Apostle And let all the Angels of God worship him The Psalm hath no Title at all in the Original which the Greek Version noteth affirming that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it addes one of its own namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Psalm of David when his land was restored Hence it is referred by some to the time of his return unto Hierusale◠after he had been expelled the Kingdom by Absolom by others with more probability to the time of his bringing the Ark into the Tabernacle from the house of Obed-edom when the land was quieted before him And unquestionably in it the Kingdom of God was shadowed out under the Type of the Kingdom of David which Kingdom of God was none other but that of the Messiah It is evident that this Psalm is of the same Nature with that which goes before yea a part of it or an Appendix unto it The first words of this take up and carrie on what is affirmed in the tenth verse or close of that so that both of them are but one continued Psalm of Praise Now the Title of that Psalm and consequently this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A new song v. 1. which Psalms as Rashi confesseth are to be referred unto the World to come that is the Time and Kingdome of the Messiah So Kimchi affirms that this Psalm and that following respect the time when the people shall be delivered from the Captivity out of all Nations that is the time of the Messiah And Rakenati affirms that the last verse of it He cometh to judge the earth can respect nothing but the coming and reign of the Messiah Thus they out of their Traditions Some of the Antients I confess charge them with corrupting this Psalm in the version of the 10 verse affirming that the words sometimes were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord reigned from the Tree denoting as the say the Cross. So Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho And after him the same words are remembred by Tertullian ad Judae cap. 10. ad Marci lib. 3. And Augustin Enarr in Psal. 95. And though the fraud and corruption pretended be improbable indeed impossible nor are the words mentioned by Justine acknowledged by the Targum or any Greek Translator or Hierom yet it is evident that all parties granted the Messiah and his Kingdom to be intended in the Psalm or there had been no need or colour for the one to suspect the other of corruption about it It is then evident that the Antient Church of the Jews whose Tradition is herein followed by the Modern acknowledged this Psalm to contain a description of the Kingdom of God in the Messiah and on their consent doth the Apostle proceed And the next Psalm which is of the same importance with this is entituled by the Targumist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Prophetical Psalm namely
indignation against their obstinacy for any one seriously to consider how wofully they wrest the words up and down to make a tolerable application of them unto Hezekiah whom they would fix this Prophesie upon and on the occasion given us by the Targum I shall take a little view of their sentiments on this place of the Prophet That of old they esteemed a Prophesie of the Messiah not only the Targum as we have seen but the Talmud also doth acknowledge Besides also they manifest the same conviction in their futilous Traditions In Tractat. Saned Distino Cholech They have a Tradition that God thought to have made Hezekiah to be the Messiah and Senacherib to have been Gog and Magog but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Property of Judgement interposed and asked why David rather was not made the Messiah who had made so many Songs to the praise of God And Rabbi Hillel as we shall see afterwards contended that Israel was not any more to look for a Messiah seeing they enjoyed him in Hezekiah Now these vain Traditions arose meerly from the concessions of their old Masters granting the Messiah to be here spoken of and the craft of their later ones wresting the words unto Hezekiah so casting them into confusion that they knew not what to say nor believe But let us see how they acquit themselves at last in this matter Four things are here promised concerning this Child or Son that should be given § 33 unto the Church 1. That the Government should be on his shoulder 2. That his name should be callâ—d Wonderful Counsellor the mighty God the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace 3. That of the increase of his Government there should be no end 4. That he should sit on the Throne of David to order it for ever And we may see how well they accommodate these things unto Hezekiah their endeavours being evidently against the Faith of the antient Church the Traditions of their Fathers and it may be doubted their own light and conviction First The Government shall be on his shoulder saith Sol. Jarchi Because the Rule and yoke of God shall be upon him in the study of the Law This pleaseth not Kimchi as it is indeed ridiculous and therefore he observeth that mention is not made of the Shoulder but with reference unto Burden and weight whence he gives this interpretation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because Ahaz served the King of Assyria and his burden was on his shoulder he sayes of this Child he shall not be a servant with his shoulder but the Government shall be on him And this it seems is all that is here promised and this is all the concernment of the Church in this Promise Hezekiah shall not serve the King of Assyria Neither is it true that Ahaz served the King of Assyria under tribute and it may seem rather that Hezekiah did so for a season seeing it is expresly said that he rebelled against him and served him no more 2 Chron. 18. v. 7. Yea plainly he did so and paid him by way of tribute three hundred Talents of Silver and thirty talents of Gold 2 Kings 18. v. 14. So He. Aben Ezra passeth over this expression without taking notice of it Secondly As to the name ascribed unto him they are for the most part agreed and § 34 unless that one evasion which they have fixed on will relieve them they are utterly silent Now this is as was before declared that the words are to be read The Wonderfull Counsellor the mighty God the Everlasting Father shall call his Name the Prince of Peace so that the Prince of Peace only is the name of the promised Child all the rest are the Name of God But 1. If words may be so transposed and shufled together as they are to produce this sense there will nothing be left certain in the Scripture nor can they give any one instance of such a disposal of words as they fancy in this place 2. The very reading of the words rejects this Gloss He shall call his Name Wonderfull 3. It is the name of the Child and not of God that gives him which is expressed for the comfort of the Church 4. What tolerable Reason can be given for such an accumulation of Names unto God in this place 5. There is nothing in the lâ—ast not any distinctive accent to separate between the Prince of Peace and the expressions foregoing but the same Person is intended by them all so that it was not Hezekiah but the mighty God himself who in the Person of the Son was to be incarnate that is here spoken of Besides on what account should Hezekiah so eminently be called The Prince of Peace § 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Prince is never used in the Scripture with reference unto any thing but he that is so called hath chief Power and Authority over that whereof he is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prince Chief or Captain as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the General or Chief Commander of the Army under whose Command and at whose disposal it is By the Greeks it is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle calls our Lord Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13.15 the Prince of Life and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 2. v. 10. The Prince or Captain of Salvation Nor is the word once in the Old Testament applied unto any one but he that had Power and Authority over that which he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prince of to give grant or dispose of it as he thought meet And in what sense then can Hezekiah be called the Prince of Peace Had he the Power of Peace of any sort in his hand Was he the Lord of it Was it at his disposal The most of his reign he spent in War first with his Neighbours the Philistins 2 Kings 18. v. 8. And afterwards with the King of Assyria who took all the Cities of Juda one or two only excepted 2 Kings 18. v. 13. And in what sense shall he be called the Prince of Peace The Rabbins after their wonted manner to fetch any thing out of a word whether it be ought to their Purpose or no answer that it was because of that saying Isa. 39. v. 8. For there shall be Peace and Truth in my dayes But this being spoken with respect unto the very latter part of his Raign and that only with reference unto the Babylonian Captivity which was afterwards to ensue is a sorry foundation to entitle him unto this illustrious Name the Captain Prince or Lord of Peace which bespeaks one that had all Peace and that in the Scripture Language is all that is Good or prosperous both temporal and spiritual in reference unto God and man in his power and disposal And yet this is the utmost that any of them pretend to give countenance unto this Appellation § 36 Abarbinel who heaps together
the Interpretations Conjectures and Traditions of most that went before him seems to agree with Kimchi in that of the Government being upon his Shoulder because his Father Ahaz sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Present unto the King of Assyria but he did not whereas it is expresly said that he paid him Tribute of three hundred Talents of Silver and thirty Talents of Gold for the raising whereof he emptied his own Treasures and the Treasures of the House of God yea and cut off the Gold from the Doors and Pillars of the Temple 2 Kings 18. v. 15 16. yet he mentions that other fancy of Rashi about the study of the Law and so leaves it But in this of the Name ascribed unto him he would take another course For finding Hezekiah in their Talmud Tract Saned Pereck Chelek called by his Masters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He who had eight names as Senacherib is also childishly there said to have had he would in the first place ascribe all these names unto Hezekiah giving withall such Reasons of them as I dare not be so importune on the Readers patience as to transcribe and himself after he had ascribed this Opinion to Jonathan the Targumist and Rashi embraceth the other of Kimchi before confuted And yet knows not how to abide by that neither § 37 Thirdly How can it be said of Hezekiah that of the increase of his Government there should be no end seeing he lived but four and fifty years and reigned but twenty five And his own Son Manasseh who succeeded him was carried captive into Babylâ—n But as unto this Question and that which follows about his sitting upon the Throne of David for ever after they have puzled themselves with the great Mysterie of Mem Clausum in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they would have us to suppose that these words concerned only the life of Hezekiah though it be not possible that any other word should be used more significantly expressing Perpetuity Of the increase of his Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no end it shall be endless and he shall rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from hence or now and unto for ever for evermore And thus by the Vindication of this Place from the Rabbinical Exceptions we have not only obtained our principal intention about the promise of a Deliverer but also shewed who and what manner of Person he was to be even a Child that was to be born who should also be the Mighty God the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace whose Rule and Dominion was to endure for ever § 38 Isaiah 10. v. 27. The yoke shall be destroyed because of the Annointing Targum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the People shall be broken before the Messiah And it may be some respect may be had in these words unto the Promised Seed upon whose account the yoke of the oppressors of the Church shall be broken but the words are variously interpreted and I shall not contend § 39 Isaiah 11.1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stemm of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of his Roots Targum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a King shall come forth from the Sons of Jesse and Messiah shall be annointed from the Sons of his Sons his Posterity Ver. 6. The Wolf shall dwell with the Lamb Targum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the dayes of the Messiah of Israel peace shall be multiplyed in the earth and the Wolf shall dwell with the Lamb. That this Chapter contains a Prophesie of the Messiah and his Kingdom and that immediately and directly all the Jews confess Hence is that part of their usual Song in the Evening of the Sabbath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shake thy self from dust arise My People clothed in glorious guise For from Bethlehem Jesse's Son Brings to my soul Redemption They call him the Son of Jesse from this place which makes it somewhat observable that some Christians as Grotius should apply it unto Hezekiah Judaizing in their interpretations beyond the Jews Only the Jews are not well agreed in what sense those words the Wolf shall dwell with the Lamb and the Leopard shall lye down with the Kid c. are to be understood Some would have it that the nature of the brute Beasts shall be changed in the dayes of the Messiah but this is rejected by the wisest of them as Maimonides Kimchi Aben Ezra and others and these interpret the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 allegorically applying them unto that Vniversal Peace which shall be in the world in the dayes of the Messiah But the Peace they fancy is far from answering the words of the Prophesie which express a change in the nature of the worst of men by vertue of the Rule and Grace of the Messiah I cannot but add that Abarbinel writing his Commentaries about the time that the Europaean Christian Nations were fighting with the Saracens for the Land of Palestine or the Holy Land he interprets the latter end of the tenth Chapter to the destruction of them on both sides by God whereon their Messiah should be revealed as is promised in this which he expresseth in the close of his Exposition of the first Verse of Chap. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And there shall prevail great War between the Nations of the world one against another on or for the Holy Land and strong Nations shall fall in it by the sword of one another and therefore it is said behold the Lord the Lord of Host shall lop Chap. 10. v. 33. And a little after he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middest of that War shall Messiah the King be revealed For those Nations he would have had to be Gog and Magog and in many places doth he express his hopes of the ruine of the Christians by that War but the issue hath disappointed his hopes and desires Ise. 16. v. 1. Send ye the Lamb to the Ruler of the Land Targum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 40 They shall bring their Tribute unto the Messiah of Israel Oâ—serving as it should seem that the Moabites unto whom these words are spoken were never after this time tributary to Judah and withall considering the Prophesie of v. 5. which he applies also and that properly unto the Messiah the Targumist conceived him to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ruler here mentioned unto whom the Moabites are invited to yield obedience and I conceive it will not be very easie to fix upon a more genuine sense of the words So also ver 5. Then shall the Throne of the Messiah of Israel be prepared in Goodness Doubtless with more Truth than those Christians make use of who wrest these words also to Hezekiah Isa. 28.5 In that day shall the Lord of Hosts be for a Crown of Glory Targum § 41 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Messiah of the Lord of Hosts the Lord
in novo faedere praecipit But these things agree neither with the truth nor with the design of the Apostle in this place nor with the Principles of them by whom they are asserted It is acknowledg'd that God hath other sons besides Jesus Christ and that with respect unto him for in him we are adopted the only way whereby any one may attain unto the priviledge of Sonship but that we are sons of God with or in the same kind of sonship with Jesus Christ is 1. False because 1. Christ in his Sonship is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only begotten Son of God and ther◠〈◊〉 is impossible that God should have any more sons in the same kind with him for if he had certainly the Lord Christ could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his only begotten Son 2. The only way of Filiation the only kind of Sonship that Believers share in is that of Adoption in any other kind of sonship they are not partakers Now if Christ be the Son of God in this kind he must of necessity antecedently unto his Adoption be a Member of another Family that is of the Family of Sathan and the World as we are by Nature and from thence be transplanted by Adoption into the Family of God which is Blasphemy to imagine So that neither can Believers be the sons of God with that kind of sonship which is proper to Christ he being the only begotten of the Father nor can the Lord Christ be the Son of God with the same kind of Sonship as Believers are which is only by Adoption and their translation out of one Family into another So that either to exalt Believers into the same kind of Sonship with Christ or to depress him into the same rank with them is wholly inconsistent with the Analogy of Faith and Principles of the Gospel 3. If this were so that the Lord Christ and Believers were the Sons of God by the same kind of Sonship only differing in degrees which also are imaginary for the formal Reason of the same kind of Sonship is not capable of variation by degrees what great matter is in the condescension mentioned by the Apostle chap. 2.11 that he is not ashamed to call them brethren which yet he compares with the condescension of God in being called their God chap. 11.16 2. This conceit as it is Vntrue so it is contrary to the design of the Apostle For to assert the Messiah to be the Son of God in the same way with men doth not tend at all to prove him more excellent than the Angels but rather leaves us just ground of suspecting their preference above him 3. It is contrary unto other declared Principles of the Authors of this Assertion They else-where affirm that the Lord Christ was the Son of God on many accounts as first and principally because he was conceived and born of a Virgin by the power of God now surely all Believers are not partakers with him in this kind of Sonship Again they say he is the Son of God because God raised him from the dead to confirm the Doctrine that he had taught which is not so with Believers Also they say he is the Son of God and so called upon the account of his sitting at the Right Hand of God which is no less his peculiar priviledge than the former So that this is but an unhappy attempt to lay hold of a word for an advantage which yields nothing in the issue but trouble and perplexity Nor can the Lord Christ which is affirmed in the last place be called the Son of God and the first-born because in him was that Holiness which is required in the new Covenant for both all Believers under the Old Testament had that Holiness and likeness unto God in their degrees and that Holines consists principally in Regeneration or being born again by the Word and Spirit out of a corrupted estate of death and sin which the Lord Christ was not capable of Yea the truth is the Holiness and Image of God in Christ was in the kind of it that which was required under the first Covenant an Holiness of perfect Innocency and perfect Righteousness in Obedience So that this last invention hath no better success than the former It appeareth then that the Lord Christ is not called the first-begotten or the first-born with any such respect unto others as should include him and them in the same kind of Filiation To give therefore a direct account of this Appellation of Christ we may observe that indeed the Lord Christ is never absolutely called the first-begotten or first-born with respect either to his Eternal Generation or to the Conception and Nativity of his Humane Nature In respect of the former he is called the Son and the only begotten Son of God but no where the first-born or first-begotten and in respect of the latter indeed he is called the first-begotten Son of the Virgin because she had none before him but not absolutely the first-born or first-begotten which Title is here and else-where ascribed unto him in the Scripture It is not therefore the thing it self of being the first-born but the Dignity and Priviledge that attended it which are designed in this Appellation So Col. 1.15 he is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first-born of the creation which is no more but he that hath Power and Authority over all the creatures of God The word which the Apostle intends to express is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which oft-times is used in the sense now pleaded for namely to denote not the birth in the first place but the priviledge that belonged thereunto So Psal. 89.27 God is said to make David his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his first-born which is expounded in the next words higher than the Kings of the earth So that the Lord Christ being the first-born is but the same which we have insisted on of his being Heir of all which was the priviledge of the first-born And this priviledge was sometimes transmitted unto others that were not the first-born although the natural course of their nativity could not be changed Gen. 21.10 chap. 49. v. 3 4 8. The Lord Christ then by the appointment of the Father being entrusted with the whole Inheritance of Heaven and Earth and Authority to dispose of it that he might give out portions to all the rest of God's family is and is called the first-born thereof There remains now but one word more to be considered for the opening of this Introduction of the ensuing Testimony and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that is God himself saith they are His words which shall be produced What ever is spoken in the Scripture in his name it is his speaking and he continueth to speak it unto this day He speaks in the Scripture unto the end of the world This is the foundation of our faith that which it riseth from and that which it is râ—solved into